BNP PARIBAS v. DomCollect International GmbH
Claim Number: FA1803001775309
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: DomCollect International GmbH of Köln, International, DE.
Respondent Representative: none
REGISTRY and REGISTRAR
Registry: DotOnline Inc.
Registrar: 1&1 Internet SE
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Lyons, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 12, 2018
Commencement: March 13, 2018
Default Date: March 28, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure, paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1.] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of International (Madrid) Trademark Regn. No. 1,151,363 for the mark, Hello bank!, registered from December 13, 2012, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name makes trivial alterations to the Complainant’s trademark, merely omitting the exclamation mark and adding the gTLD, “.online”. Neither adds an element of distinctiveness to the trademark and the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is essentially identical (and certainly confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 is satisfied.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that it has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name, that he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage with various links including a link back to Complainant’s business. The domain name is for sale.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 is satisfied.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
Absent a response there is no plausible reason to find registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. There has been no use of the domain name for a bona fide purpose and the resolving website links back to Complainant’s business presumably generating referral revenue for the Respondent. The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 is satisfied.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Debrett Lyons, Examiner
Dated: March 30, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page